EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use

I've thought about it many times (as that other thread probably shows) and I think Apoc and I discussed it quite often too! Formal description logic may be taking it too far for most though

Personally I want the wording to be specific, not necessarily simple or plain english. My issue with the rules is that the language is not always consistent, and the grammar leaves ambiguity. So I am quite sure as a technical writer you understand this, though I understand why people may draw a distinction as there is a difference between software manuals for end users, and technical documentation of technical things for technical people Like W3C specifications or the like. Personally I think the bigger issue is that, despite the FAQs, there really is a huge amount of ambiguity and trying to remove it you are forced to confront all those edge cases that the community either hasn't even come across yet or doesn't agree on what the rules are trying to say.

By all means, hit us up with an example. I think that'd be a good idea for you as much as anyone else, as you will get a sense of how much arguing over specific meaning of particular words and grammar you will get from us

It’s fantastic that your taking this on! I enjoy playing Epic but issues and ambiguity in the rules can sometimes take away from that enjoyment. I think a rules rewrite or ‘revamp’ if you will, would be best undertaken by a single person or small group with a cohesive vision for the game.

I believe a group of gamers in Poland revamped the rules for Warmaster calling it ‘warmaster revolution’ which now seems to largely be embraced by the wider community. So there is a precedent for what your doing.

I am happy to read and play with the rule set you come up with and offer some feed back afterwards.

Wow. Long story made short, this little idea has attracted some quite unnecessary hostility (more so in personal messages on Facebook...).

As a result I'm starting to regret inviting comment at this stage. Perhaps I should've just waited a little longer and skipped straight to "here it is, love it or hate it!".

Please remember — this is entirely an OPTIONAL resource, something I've done for ME that I'm choosing to share as others might also find it helpful. It is NOT AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT to your hobby or a challenge to the 'official tournament approved' versions of things. Seriously people...

To those who are more positive, at least in principle (you haven't really seen it yet of course) and who have more constructive points to make — thank you, and I hope you find value in it.

So, proof-reading and endless debate be damned — I'll publish soon when it suits me and you can use it if you like it, or not if you don't. If it gains enough (respectful) interest then of course I'll be happy to engage with the rest of the community and take ideas on board.

Watch this space, if you care. Feel free to walk away and never look back if you don't.

(Please keep in mind that I do have a life away from all this and that this will continue to be a 'work in progress' even when published.)

jimmyzimms wrote:

PS obvious not everyone in this thread actually seems to understand what technical writing is as a skilled profession.

Amen, 100% right brother. Grammerly indeed... (and anyway, it's spelled 'Grammarly', which is something you actually could catch with such a tool...)

PS obvious not everyone in this thread actually seems to understand what technical writing is as a skilled profession.

Amen, 100% right brother. Grammerly indeed... (and anyway, it's spelled 'Grammarly', which is something you actually could catch with such a tool...)[/quote]

Well if you were a British technical writer you would know its spelt as spelled is more of a US Term or are you filtering page after page of the rulebook through Grammarly (just for you) hoping for a suitable outcome?

Greg, I wish you a speedy recovery and a pleasant period of recuperation.

Mic Fair wrote:

I enjoy playing Epic but issues and ambiguity in the rules can sometimes take away from that enjoyment.

Yes, that's exactly how I feel and such rambling rules are off-putting for newbies too.

I've rewritten a lot, but then also some things just needed joining up a little more. For example, I've added datasheets into all the training missions. People have got enough to focus on with the rules, so why make them hunt just to find the various datasheets they need for each mission?

Mic Fair wrote:

So there is a precedent for what your doing.

Interesting to hear about other precedents, though I feel must reiterate — I'm not changing anything about the game play. I'm only making the existing game play easier to understand (though this is bound to throw some light onto rules people misunderstood in the first place, so I expect them to accuse me of 'changing things' when in fact I haven't, genuine mistakes notwithstanding).

Kyrt wrote:

Personally I think the bigger issue is that, despite the FAQs, there really is a huge amount of ambiguity and trying to remove it you are forced to confront all those edge cases that the community either hasn't even come across yet or doesn't agree on what the rules are trying to say.

Yes, I believe I totally get where you are coming from with this. Ambiguous points can sometimes be impossible to resolve unless you can talk them through with the originator.However, in most cases I found that when I made a close examination of related texts and FAQs there was actually a common thread of logic, and thus I could resolve things with a high degree of confidence. Meanwhile, many things were difficult to interpret and absorb because of poor sentence construction, but actually only really have one logical interpretation when you unpick them.

Of course, certain types of people may expect me to explain and evidence all this in minute detail. But to them I say: 1) read the rules and FAQs closer yourself and you'll find it if you're that bothered, and 2) you don't have to use it if you don't like it — I'm just offering something more obvious and consistent for the rest of us.

That said, I'm only human. So once it's up and running I'll see about setting up way to gather feedback so that — when I can make the time — I can correct any real mistakes and act on sage ideas for further improvement.

And if you weren't such an idiot you've have noticed that it is spelled wrong in the title of that article, and then they got it right in the sentences that followed... https://www.grammarly.com/

And since you love it so much, here from Grammarly: "It’s true; the American English past tense form is spelled. In other varieties of English, both spelled and spelt are common." https://www.grammarly.com/blog/spelled-spelt/

And anyway, not even a technical writer has to get every tiny detail 100% right 100% of the time, and some things are more complicated.

junkstar wrote:

We're still waiting for the pdf......

...and as I told you right at the start, I'll share the whole thing when I'm ready. Clearly you're not interested so why not butt out? I'm not interested in playing to your pathetic agenda.

Dave, Ginger, TinyTim, mordoten, kyuss are all going to be your go-to guys as rule SMEs. (Apologies for anyone obvious I left off). I'd actually suggest something like an ERC slack channel for this type of work

You probably could do with some more games, regardless. You might be interested in checking out this Vassal module which will allow you to easily play people from across the globe. Worse case you get a game in, right ?

You might be interested in checking out this Vassal module which will allow you to easily play people from across the globe. Worse case you get a game in, right ?

Nice thought, thank you. But to be honest, I have very little interest in tournaments and even less in playing a computerised version (though I applaud the effort). Call me a fair weather gamer, but I like to get together with one of my chums (their place or mine) and play the real thing at our leisure, even if this doesn't happen as often as we'd like.

As for undergoing review processes, as has been mentioned a few times... I can't imagine why I would want to do that. This is just a personal work-in-progress project I'm offering to make available if some people are interested. That's all.

There does seem to be some interest, so I'll put it online soon and post the link here. After that, if some people are enthusiastic about it and want to get involved in some way then I'm sure I'll be honoured and I'll see what I can do, but I don't have any particular agenda.

I think that any effort to make the rules more accessible and more accurate would be welcomed by many. So I for one would love to see the fruit of your labours. But I would also agree with the note of caution being expressed around the need for in-game experience.

The rules were written in an idiosyncratic manner, section 1 being the main rules, which are overruled by subsequent sections. While the rules work reasonably well in general, issues often arise where they are combined, or where the definitions are tested by in-game situations. For example

WE may barge units but

While this works in 2 dimensions, what happens where this is applied to WE air-transports landing vertically in an assault

Can WE 'barge' friendly units as well as enemy units. RAW this is ambiguous

While Assaulting into an enemy ZoC works reasonably well in 2 dimensions against a single enemy formation,

Can the assaulting unit enter the ZoC of a unit from a different formation while in the ZoC of a target unit?

What is permitted in an air assault where there are overlapping ZoCs?

There are a lot of others (most but not all are covered by FAQ), and in the more contentious cases the usual answer is the agree a solution in the "5 minute warmup" before the game!

Pah, past tense! Surely used here as a participle Hrm, I have to admit to being very rusty on the nomenclature, but I want to say... present perfect tense. A past participle used to form a present perfect verb tense? Doesn't sound quite right but it's 2am.

As for undergoing review processes, as has been mentioned a few times... I can't imagine why I would want to do that. This is just a personal work-in-progress project I'm offering to make available if some people are interested. That's all.

I was very excited by the project, but the last couple responses, and this particular passage, leave me feeling rather cooled. If there's to be any thread of intellectual integrity woven into the work, an independent peer review process should happen before any slip-ups sneak in to the published document.

I welcome the attempt to offer a simplified format to what can be a rather convoluted and ambiguous text, but I'm rather concerned with the tone used in reply to criticism or (often harsh, admittedly) comment, and I'm not entirely sure I trust your rules interpretation any better than my own if you've had even less exposure of different game metas and styles than I have (and I'm the noob around here).

Keep up the work, but I'm hoping someone will robustly oversee the end result so it will become a genuinely universal resource.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum